The Entire Universe was never like the interior of a star

In the course of presenting my Geometric Expansion Model, (GEM) (formally called a Uniform Expansion Model), I have been asked by Nereid to address many issues. One is the Cosmic Background Radiation and the other is Early Element Production or what can be called Big Bang nucleosynthesis .

Addressing these two issues are particularly important since the proposed GEM does not start off with a Universe that is like the interior of a Star, as required by the Big Bang Model. The Universe begins with a spatial separation between galaxies.

Background
Those already familiar with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and the Cosmic Background Radiation may save some time by skipping the first posting.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gamow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher-Bethe-Gamow_paper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_nucleosynthesis

One physical characteristic of the Big Bang Model is that the Universe begins extremely dense and extremely hot. Alpher and Gamow in a landmark paper reasoned that the temperatures would be so intense that fusion would occur, just like what happens in the interior of a star. This would allow Hydrogen to become Helium. At the time Alpher and Gamow thought that all the elements were produced this way, but subsequent analysis proved this to be in error and eventually it was recognized that the Heaver Elements (usually referred to as “metals” by astronomers) were formed as a result of both stellar nucleosynthesis, and supernova nucleosynthesis.

Not quite right
Some trace elements heavier than He are produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The predicted trace elements are all lighter than Boron, but this is a bit of an issue since Boron has been observed in young stars.

Observational confirmation
Despite the shortcoming of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the model was consistent with the observed ratio of Hydrogen to Helium, and it predicted an initial temperature to the early universe. This initial temperature would cool with the expansion of spacetime, which allowed Alpher and Gamow to predict the current background temperature of the Universe. Their prediction was off by 5 degrees Celsius. A fairly remarkable prediction. (Although they later increased the temperature and were even further off the mark).

Generally, with a few reasonable corrections or assumptions, the predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis seem to confirm the Big Bang Model.

Cosmic Background radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation

Black Body radiation
One alternate explanation for the Cosmic Background radiation is that the temperature of space is the result of the radiant energy of all the stars in the universe. The trouble with this argument is that the observed temperature curve of the background radiation is remarkably like that of a black body, a skewed bell like curve. All black body radiation sources exhibit this characteristic curve that is parameterized solely by the peak temperature. If the radiant energy in the Universe were only from stars, then there would be variations in the temperature distribution due to the differing spectral emissions from the light that is emitted from stars. These gap like or variable emissions are far different from that observed and are in no way are like that of a black body.

This is another reputed confirmation of the Big Bang Cosmology

Anisotropy
The general uniformity of the distribution of the temperature across the Universe also conforms to the expectations of a Universe that has dramatically expanded. Any variations would be spread out.

Variations and Flatness
Also, there is a general correlation with the observed size and density of these temperature variations and the present location and density of the mass distributed within the Universe. This correlation of the slight temperature variations to a generalized distribution of matter has been used to determine that the Universe is essentially Flat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

Theory conforms to Observation
The Big Bang Model does make predictions that correlate to observation with respect to the formation of early elements and the Cosmic Background Radiation. This does not necessarily make it right, particularly if another model predicts the same observational results


Continued…..
Snowflake

Applying the Geometric Expansion Model
If the Geometric Expansion Model is correct, the physical predictions of the model must produce the same observed physical effects used to justify the Big Bang Model. It does.

First issue, Filling the Universe with Radiant Energy

According to the GEM, matter and spacetime enter our universe within the cores of galaxies, and in the past, the increased effect of gravity would have greatly accelerated the energy produced from fusion. Stars would evolve very quickly and explode repeatedly within the first few thousand years in the Universes evolution. (see White or Black?)

So instead of the entire universe being like the interior of a star, it is the core of every galaxy that is like the interior of billions of stars with millions of exploding micro supernovas. It is this process that fills the Universe with radiant energy.

Dispersal or Spreading out of background temperature
The expansion of spacetime, a requirement of the Geometry of the GEM, would reduce or spread out the variation in the temperature of this background radiation, just as is observed.

Flat Universe
The Geometry of the expansion, according to the Geometric Expansion Model, is required to be Flat, which corresponds to the observations made. The model predicts a Flat Universe with out dark matter or dark energy.

Early element production
Another argument for the justification of the Big Bang model is the early formation of elements in a particular ratio. If the Geometric Expansion Model is correct, it must also allow the same kind of proportional production of elements.

The GEM also allows early production of elements by fusion. If the stream of matter into the Universe is essentially Hydrogen, or its building blocks, and if reasonable assumptions are made as to the initial curvature of spacetime are used, it would be possible to either fuse Hydrogen directly into Helium, or fuse Hydrogen into Helium after a small star formed. This early fusion process is a result of the intense curvature of spacetime which would correspond to the effect of gravity being thousands of millions of times what is experienced presently near our Sun. This initial fusion process would produce a burst of disperse energy which would spread out the still incoming stream of H and the results of this fusion. This repeated “blowing out of the candle” also prevents the formation of heavier elements from this initial fusion.

Heavy Element Production
However, one prediction of this GEM is that the byproducts of the initial fusion process would quickly coalesce and reform away from the incoming stream of matter and spacetime located at the core of galaxies. This rapid star formation occurs because the effect of gravity is so intense due to the highly curved or dense spacetime that existed in the early universe, especially near the cores of galaxies. These second and third generation stars would “burn” Helium and some of the heavier byproducts of fusion. Some stars would supernova to produce the elements heavier than Iron and it is through these processes the elements in our Universe are produced.

No Population III stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_III_stars
This model eliminates the necessity for Population III stars. It is important to note that these stars, which are much more massive then all the stars we see around us, were never predicted in advance. These stars were invented in order to account for the evidence of heaver elements in the early universe. It was proposed that when the Universe was very young and very dense and composed of essentially Hydrogen and Helium, it would be possible to form extremely large stars. This large size was necessary in order for the stars to evolve quickly. (The Energy production of a star varies roughly to the fourth power of the Mass). Allowing the existence of such massive stars would mean that stars could evolve and blow up in less than 1 billion years. Advocates of the Population III hypothesis also argue that since these densities of matter no longer exist, the formation of these supermassive stars can no longer form.

I have discussed this issue in the past in this Forum. I assert that such massive stars cannot exist and that all “standard sized” stars require some kind of Iron core in order to maintain stability.

Observation of Metals in High Red shift Galaxies
One validation of the GEM is the prediction of metals very early in the evolution of the Universe, which is something that is becoming an issue for the current mainstream model.

Summary
In summary, the Geometric Expansion Model predicts the Cosmic Background Radiation. It predicts it would be expanded. It predicts that small variations should be associated with the background density of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate should be flat. It provides a realistic methodology for the production of the elements observed in the early Universe better than the current Mainstream model can.

The GEM is in compliance with observation with respect to early element formation and the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Snowflake

Is there any evidence from observing either the interior of our own galaxy, or the interior of other galaxies that there is matter being created (or coming into our universe)?

Does this account for the fact that spin of the galaxies (with dark matter) is different than the predicted spin without?

Model? Where is the Model? where are the maths?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Hi Trocisp
Sorry it took so long to respond, I missed your posting

You asked,

Is there any evidence from observing either the interior of our own galaxy, or the interior of other galaxies that there is matter being created (or coming into our universe)?

I address this issue in “White or Black” but look at the following link. Does it look like streams of matter are flowing into our galaxy from the core with stars forming along the streams of gas?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/

If you want to discuss this more, it would be best to post in the “White or Black” thread

Thanks

Snowflake

Hi Captain Swoop

You asked about the math. I am in the process of updating the mathematics of the model based on an Expanding Metric. I should be able to post it soon for your review.

Snowflake

I'm chiming in here. No maths, no model, no evidence. You also have to show that your GEM is correct as well.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

Hi Vermonter

Message recieved, Model to be presented for your review soon.

Snowflake

How does the ATM model, as presented here or in other threads in this section, account for:

* the observed CMB dipole?

* the CMB angular power spectrum?

* the CMB polarisation?

* the observed luminosity-(spatial) density of galaxies (and quasars), as a function of z?

* specifically, why have no galaxies or quasars been observed with z ~>7 (if the CMB is, per the ATM idea presented here, the integrated 'image' of galaxy cores z ~1100 to 5, there should be vast numbers of them)?

If matter and energy is created at the centers of galaxies, what explains the fact that the CMB is coming from every direction we look and not just the centers of galaxies?